why is my fine so large £425 for 90 in a 70mph?

[Broccers]

grumbledoak said:

10 Pence Short said:

that's why it's proportionate to your means.

They brainwashed you good and proper!

Given the variety of ways in which people can earn/obtain money it's impossible to envisage a fines system that is even remotely Just. It is more likely that the means testing is simply a way of raising more revenue that a flat system would allow.

Totally agree.

Punishing the successful more is not on.

[10 Pence Short]

grumbledoak said:

10 Pence Short said:

that's why it's proportionate to your means.

They brainwashed you good and proper!

Given the variety of ways in which people can earn/obtain money it's impossible to envisage a fines system that is even remotely Just. It is more likely that the means testing is simply a way of raising more revenue that a flat system would allow.

It's nothing to do with brainwashing. I just don't see how a millionaire being fined the same as someone on JSA can be seen as equally effective? The fine isn't there to pay some specific recompense; it's a punishment and a deterrent. The closer you get to offering the same punishment and deterrent effect to both the millionaire and the JSA individual the closer you get to justice.

What's really happening is making sure the punishment fits the offender as well as the crime.

[10 Pence Short]

Broccers said:

grumbledoak said:

10 Pence Short said:

that's why it's proportionate to your means.

They brainwashed you good and proper!

Given the variety of ways in which people can earn/obtain money it's impossible to envisage a fines system that is even remotely Just. It is more likely that the means testing is simply a way of raising more revenue that a flat system would allow.

Totally agree.

Punishing the successful more is not on.

If you have a fixed rate fine irrespective of wealth you're effectively saying the rich can afford to commit crimes that the less well off cannot. That's a two tier justice system we could do well without.

[Broccers]

10 Pence Short said:

If you have a fixed rate fine irrespective of wealth you're effectively saying the rich can afford to commit crimes that the less well off cannot. That's a two tier justice system we could do well without.

I totally do not agree.

My proposition would be to have more expensive fines so that poorer people would think twice about committing crime, removal of benefit for example. I don't actually consider speeding a crime either.

[grumbledoak]

10 Pence Short said:

If you have a fixed rate fine irrespective of wealth you're effectively saying the rich can afford to commit crimes that the less well off cannot. That's a two tier justice system we could do well without.

You cannot meaningfully fine someone on benefits - they do nothing to 'earn' that money. Means testing just means the underclass go unpunished. Which is two tier, too. Still, being seen to be 'sticking it' to the Rich is the 'socialist' way. Envy and spite, envy and spite, Comrade.

[cs02rm0]

We shouldn't be fining people for speeding. Covering conviction costs maybe.

The bottom line with any government branch though is - do they think they can squeeze that much out of you? Then that's how much you'll pay.

[10 Pence Short]

grumbledoak said:

10 Pence Short said:

If you have a fixed rate fine irrespective of wealth you're effectively saying the rich can afford to commit crimes that the less well off cannot. That's a two tier justice system we could do well without.

You cannot meaningfully fine someone on benefits - they do nothing to 'earn' that money. Means testing just means the underclass go unpunished. Which is two tier, too. Still, being seen to be 'sticking it' to the Rich is the 'socialist' way. Envy and spite, envy and spite, Comrade.

Oh FFS. You disagree with asking wealthy people to have a proportionate fine to less wealthy people and suddenly you're some kind of Stalinist? Get real.

What if people who earn more than £500 a week also got 2 points instead of 3? Or people who employ a few folk get suspended prison sentences for rape whereas those on benefits get 2 years?

The fine is a punishment. A toddler might need a gentle tap on the wrists to feel punished whereas a fully gown man might need a smack in the mouth to feel equally punished.


It's absolutely nothing to do with punishing success or whether you agree or disagree with speeding being a justified offence. It's the principle that the punishment should fit both the circumstances of the offence and the offender.

Do people really disagree with the principle of the circumstances of the offender being taken into account when being sentenced?

[Broccers]

10 Pence Short said:

Do people really disagree with the principle of the circumstances of the offender being taken into account when being sentenced?

Yes because proportionately the poorest come off lightest.

[cs02rm0]

10 Pence Short said:

Do people really disagree with the principle of the circumstances of the offender being taken into account when being sentenced?

Yes, I think you're going about it the wrong way if it comes down to that.

[grumbledoak]

10 Pence Short said:

Oh FFS. You disagree with asking wealthy people to have a proportionate fine to less wealthy people and suddenly you're some kind of Stalinist? Get real.

What, sticking it to the rich and raising more revenue, all while claiming it is 'fairer'? I can't think of a better summary of modern socialism. We just need Ben Elton being 'right on' and we're there.

[Broccers]

Thought I'd check back on this one - not many sharing dan's view, good stuff.

[lippydave]

Mr C,
you are a heterosexual,employed, white middle class, petrol headed, male living in Brown's "Nu Labour" edition of Britain....

That's makes you the lowest of the low. The most oppressed of the minorities....

If however, you were a freshly arrived disabled jobless lesbian Nigerian immigrant mother of 6 on social benefits they would probably work it out such that you recieved 425 quid as a compensation for being stopped speeding in your state provided sick-mobile people carrier whilst taking your kids for free NHS treatment....

Makes yer piss boil doesn't it......?

Basically the coppers and the government are run by corrupt, greedy, self-serving, right-on, nimby, narrow-minded, selfish f8ckwits of the highest order...

Grrrr, break out the AK47s and let's go postal on their arses.....

[otolith]

So should sentencing generally be adjusted to equalise the consequences to the offender? A custodial sentence will cost a man with a good job and a mortgage much more than it will an unemployed man in a council house without a pot to piss in - should the sentences be adjusted accordingly?

Edited by otolith on Friday 16th April 19:32

[vonhosen]

otolith said:

So should sentencing generally be adjusted to equalise the consequences to the offender? A custodial sentence will cost a man with a good job and a mortgage much more than it will an unemployed man in a council house without a pot to piss in - should the sentences be adjusted accordingly?

Edited by otolith on Friday 16th April 19:32

Person A has £15k disposable income per annum.
Person B has £1k disposable income per annum.

Both are given a term of 4 months imprisonment. Is it possible for them to both serve that ? = Yes.
Both are given a £2k fine. Is it possible for them to both pay it ? = No.

[10 Pence Short]

vonhosen said:

otolith said:

So should sentencing generally be adjusted to equalise the consequences to the offender? A custodial sentence will cost a man with a good job and a mortgage much more than it will an unemployed man in a council house without a pot to piss in - should the sentences be adjusted accordingly?

Edited by otolith on Friday 16th April 19:32

Person A has £15k disposable income per annum.
Person B has £1k disposable income per annum.

Both are given a term of 4 months imprisonment. Is it possible for them to both serve that ? = Yes.
Both are given a £2k fine. Is it possible for them to both pay it ? = No.

Exactly. There are some people on this thread who are either being purposely obtuse or excessively and unexpectedly stupid.

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

otolith said:

So should sentencing generally be adjusted to equalise the consequences to the offender? A custodial sentence will cost a man with a good job and a mortgage much more than it will an unemployed man in a council house without a pot to piss in - should the sentences be adjusted accordingly?

Edited by otolith on Friday 16th April 19:32

Person A has £15k disposable income per annum.
Person B has £1k disposable income per annum.

Both are given a term of 4 months imprisonment. Is it possible for them to both serve that ? = Yes.
Both are given a £2k fine. Is it possible for them to both pay it ? = Yes, on a payment plan.

EFA

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

otolith said:

So should sentencing generally be adjusted to equalise the consequences to the offender? A custodial sentence will cost a man with a good job and a mortgage much more than it will an unemployed man in a council house without a pot to piss in - should the sentences be adjusted accordingly?

Edited by otolith on Friday 16th April 19:32

Person A has £15k disposable income per annum.
Person B has £1k disposable income per annum.

Both are given a term of 4 months imprisonment. Is it possible for them to both serve that ? = Yes.
Both are given a £2k fine. Is it possible for them to both pay it ? = Yes, on a payment plan.

EFA

No it's not, because it has to be paid within 12 months

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

otolith said:

So should sentencing generally be adjusted to equalise the consequences to the offender? A custodial sentence will cost a man with a good job and a mortgage much more than it will an unemployed man in a council house without a pot to piss in - should the sentences be adjusted accordingly?

Edited by otolith on Friday 16th April 19:32

Person A has £15k disposable income per annum.
Person B has £1k disposable income per annum.

Both are given a term of 4 months imprisonment. Is it possible for them to both serve that ? = Yes.
Both are given a £2k fine. Is it possible for them to both pay it ? = Yes, on a payment plan.

EFA

No it's not, because it has to be paid within 12 months

Change the law, sorted.

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

otolith said:

So should sentencing generally be adjusted to equalise the consequences to the offender? A custodial sentence will cost a man with a good job and a mortgage much more than it will an unemployed man in a council house without a pot to piss in - should the sentences be adjusted accordingly?

Edited by otolith on Friday 16th April 19:32

Person A has £15k disposable income per annum.
Person B has £1k disposable income per annum.

Both are given a term of 4 months imprisonment. Is it possible for them to both serve that ? = Yes.
Both are given a £2k fine. Is it possible for them to both pay it ? = Yes, on a payment plan.

EFA

No it's not, because it has to be paid within 12 months

Change the law, sorted.

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

[randlemarcus]

vonhosen said:

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

Erm, what's the justification here? Their phone contracts will be 24 months, their Sky contracts 12 months, their car loans 5 years. And yet they don't whinge about those.

So which bleeding heart liberal decided that they cold only suffer for 12 months because they broke the law (and then decided that points stayed on, and thus financially affected folk for four years)